Replacement dwelling at Fferm Sarn LôN, Sarn Bach, Pwllheli

What was proposed

The application proposed demolishing an existing dwelling and outbuildings, building a larger two-storey replacement dwelling and improving the existing access.

“Proposal: Full application to demolish an existing dwelling (C3 use) and construction of a new replacement dwelling (C3 use) with improvements to an existing access…”

“The proposal involves demolishing the existing building which is currently empty but has obviously retained its status as a residential property. ⁠ 1.3 Specifically, the proposal involves the demolition of the existing property and adjacent outbuildings and the erection of a two-storey building partly over the footprint of the existing property which would be slightly higher than the existing building.”

Officer report

The site

The site lies within Sarn Bach’s development boundary, beside a public road and footpath, with access to an established camping and touring caravan site.

“The site is situated within the existing development boundary of the village of Sarn Bach with a third class public road running parallel to a public footpath leading off the road through the site. The existing vehicular access leads past the gable of the property serving the site and is access to an established camping and touring caravan site attached to the property to the rear of the main building.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

An earlier refurbishment and extension application was rejected, while pre-application advice raised concerns about the proposed size, design and exterior elevations.

“TAN 24: The historic environment 3. Relevant Planning History: Application C21/0914/39/DT - Application for refurbishment of existing cottage, demolition of outbuildings and erection of new side extension – Rejected 27/10/21 3.2 A pre-application enquiry was submitted under reference Y23/0161 for the demolition of the existing property and the erection of a new house.”

Officer report

Why officers recommended refusal

Officers considered the replacement dwelling too prominent, incompatible and harmful to the area’s character, streetscape and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

“In addition, developments are required to: • Contribute to, and enhance the character and appearance of the site • Respect the site and its surroundings in terms of its position in the local landscape • Use appropriate materials 5.7 The existing property forms an established part of the built form of the village of Sarn Bach.”

“Due to these concerns as highlighted by the AONB Unit, it is not believed that the the proposal would add to maintaining, enhancing or restoring the recognised character of the Llŷn Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to the relevant requirements of Policy AMG 1 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The Community Council supported the application; specialist responses raised no objections on biodiversity, drainage after re-consultation, or protected species, while no public objections were received.

“Land Drainage Unit: There is no drainage strategy for this application, therefore we propose a temporary objection until one is provided. Re-consultation We have no objections to the planning application. Note that the approval of the CCS will be subject to a full assessment during the formal application process for the CCS.”

“Public Consultation: A notice was posted on the site and nearby residents were notified. The advertising period has expired and no letter / correspondence of objection have been received.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The applicant’s agent and a neighbouring ward member supported the proposal, citing local family circumstances, the building’s condition, access improvements and traditional materials.

Members’ debate

Members discussed the empty dwelling, access improvements, permitted development rights, modern design, local character and the AONB’s comments.

“It was intended to move the property further back from the road. • The applicant was within his rights to build a larger house. • There were improvements here too – creating a safer access with better visibility – that were favourable to pedestrians and drivers. • There was a need to move with the times. • Houses of modern design and good quality should be supported – perhaps too strict with design rules.”

“In response to a question as to which design elements had been considered for this development, it was noted that the location, size, appearance, window pattern and balance of the design elements had been considered. Accepted that this was a matter of opinion, but it was the view of the local planning authority that the proposal was unacceptable in the submitted form.”

Minutes